A Strong Healthcare Public Option Is All But Dead! Thanks To House Dems "Centrist" Healthcare Bill

[Better Believe It]

A CENTRIST HOUSE HEALTH-CARE BILL?
From NBC's Doug Adams
June 9, 2009

Health care reform debate -- which has been worked on mostly behind closed doors until this point -- has hit the floor and the public today.

Earlier today, House Democrats released an outline of their bill. (Forgive the jargon, but it's called the "House Tri-Committee bill" because three House committees with jurisdiction over healthcare have been working on it.)

The surprising thing about the House Dems version is that it appears much more moderate than people expected, and it seems to reflect the concerns of Blue Dog Democrats and moderates who have big problems with a Medicare-like public plan.

The House Dems version does have a public/government option, but it's not a Medicare-like plan favored by liberals like Ted Kennedy. Instead, the bill will have a "public health insurance option that's self-sustaining and competes on a level field with private insurers."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/06/09/1958207.aspx

------------------------------------

House Releases Their Health Reform Starting Point
by DrSteveB
Daily Kos
June 9, 2009

Today the House released a public document called "Key Features of the Tri-Committee Health Reform Draft Proposal in the U.S. House of Representatives" (.PDF). I have included the full unedited text below. It is of course full of jargonese and code words.

It is also pretty sucky (that too is a code word) as a starting point (being a pessimist I tend to believe it will get weakened, not strengthened as they move forward), even by public option standards, to say nothing of single payer: It uses the "self-sustaining" and "level playing field" language that is code for being pre-crippled to not compete with the private for-profit insurance companies. In the insurance market reforms, the "guaranteed issue" and "community rating" language is also weaker than it could be.


Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Ways and Means Contact: Matthew Beck [phone]
Energy and Commerce Contact: Karen Lightfoot [phone]
Education and Labor Contact: Rachel Racusen [phone]

June 9, 2009

House Committees Brief Members on Draft Health Reform Outline

Effort will reduce costs, protect current coverage and preserve choice to ensure affordable, quality care for all

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, leaders of the Committees with jurisdiction over health policy briefed members of the House Democratic Caucus on the current framework and timing of health reform efforts in the House of Representatives. The discussion, led by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-NY), Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), and Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA), focused on the key principles of reducing health care costs, protecting current coverage and preserving choice for patients to ensure affordable, quality care for all.

The three Chairmen released the following joint statement on their efforts to develop health reform legislation:

"Our Committees are working as one to develop a uniquely-American solution to the health care crisis that is endangering the financial security of individuals and businesses. This solution will fulfill President Obama's commitment to provide quality, affordable health care for all. This framework will build upon what works by ensuring that patients can keep their health coverage if they like it, preserve patients’ choice and reduce costs. We will also fix what is broken through marketplace reforms, sliding scale credits to make coverage more affordable, and provisions to combat waste, fraud and abuse, strengthen Medicare and Medicaid, and invest in the health care workforce and public health. By improving the current system and offering a public health insurance option to promote honest competition with private insurance plans, we will provide individuals and small businesses with better, more affordable choices.

"We will continue to seek input and work closely with our colleagues, outside stakeholders, and the Administration and are on track to introduce legislation shortly. We anticipate Committee action on health reform in the coming weeks, with legislation on the House Floor prior to the August district work period. Reforming America’s health care system is critical to our country’s long-term economic recovery and long-term fiscal health. We are confident that we will achieve reform that will give Americans peace of mind and return our great nation to a path of prosperity for generations to come."

UNITED STATES CONGRESS
Prepared by the House Committees on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Labor

Key Features of the Tri-Committee Health Reform Draft Proposal in the U.S. House of Representatives
June 9, 2009

President Obama’s Commitment:
The Tri-Committee bill fulfills the President’s commitment to health care reform via legislation that:

• Reduces costs;
• Protects current coverage and preserves choice of doctors, hospitals and health plans; and
• Ensures affordable, quality health care for all.

Plan Overview:

• Maintains the ability for people to keep what they have and minimizes disruption;
• Invests in health care workforce to improve access to primary care;
• Invests in prevention and public health programs;
• Creates a new national health Exchange that permits States the option of developing a State or regional exchange in lieu of the national Exchange;
• Establishes shared responsibility among individuals, employers, and government;
• Offers sliding scale credits to ensure affordability for low and middle-income individuals and families;
• Jump starts health care delivery system reforms to reduce costs, maintain fiscal sustainability, and improve quality; and
• Expands authority to prevent waste, fraud and abuse.

Workforce Investments:

• Expands the National Health Service Corps;
• Boosts training of primary care doctors and expands pipeline of individuals going into health professions, including primary care, nursing and public health;
• Supports workforce diversity efforts; and
• Expands scholarships and loans for individuals in needed professions and shortage areas.

Prevention and Wellness:

• Expands Community Health Centers;
• Waives cost-sharing for preventive services in benefit packages;
• Creates community-based programs to deliver prevention and wellness services;
• Targets community-based programs and new data collection efforts to better identify and address racial, ethnic and other health disparities; and
• Strengthens state, local, tribal and territorial public health departments and programs.

Insurance Market Reforms:

• Ensures availability of coverage by prohibiting insurers from excluding pre-existing conditions or engaging in other discriminatory practices;
• Prohibits rating based on gender, health status, or occupation and strictly limits premium variation based on age;
• Establishes a new Health Insurance Exchange to create a transparent marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private insurers and a new public health insurance option; and
• Introduces administrative simplification and standardization to reduce administrative costs across all plans and providers.

Ensuring Affordability and Access:

• Includes sliding scale affordability credits in the Exchange to support individuals and families with incomes between Medicaid eligibility levels and 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL); (NOTE: The average cost of family coverage today is 14% of a family’s income at 400% of poverty.)
• Expands Medicaid for the most vulnerable, low-income populations and improves payment rates to enhance access to primary care under Medicaid; and
• Caps total out-of-pocket spending in all new policies to prevent bankruptcies from medical expenses.

Public Health Insurance Option:

• Enhances transparency and accountability by creating a new public health insurance option within the Exchange to offer choice and ensure competition;
• The public health insurance option is self-sustaining and competes on "level field" with private insurers in the Exchange; and
• When individuals "enter" the Exchange, whether on their own or as employees of a business that is purchasing in the Exchange, they are free to choose among available public and private options.

Benefits:

• Independent public/private advisory committee recommends benefit packages based on standards set in statute;
• Guarantees choice and fair, transparent competition by creating various levels of standardized benefits and cost-sharing arrangements, with additional benefits available in higher-cost plans; and
• Phases-in requirements relating to benefit and quality standards for employer plans.

Shared Responsibility:

• Once market reforms and affordability credits are in effect to ensure access and affordability, individuals are responsible for having health insurance with an exception in cases of hardship;
• Employers choose between providing coverage for their workers or contributing funds on behalf of their uncovered workers;
• Government is responsible for ensuring affordability of insurance through new affordability credits, insurance market and delivery system reforms and oversight of insurance companies; and
• Protects small businesses by exempting small low-wage firms and providing a new small business tax credit for firms providing health coverage.

Reforming the Health Care Delivery System and Ensuring Sustainability:

• Uses federal health programs (Medicare, Medicaid and the new public health insurance option) to reward high quality, efficient care, and reduce disparities;
• Adopts innovative payment approaches and promotes better coordinated care in Medicare and the new public option through programs such as accountable care organizations; and
• Attacks the high rate of cost growth to generate savings for reform and fiscal sustainability, including a program in Medicare to reduce preventable hospital readmissions.

Modernizing, Improving and Preserving Medicare:

• Replaces the currently flawed Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula that determines physician pay rates in Medicare;
• Increases reimbursement for primary care providers, improves the Part D program, and implements many other MedPAC recommendations;
• Extends solvency by eliminating overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans, and refining payment rates for certain services;
• Creates new consumer protections for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries;
• Improves low-income subsidy programs to ensure Medicare is truly affordable and accessible for those with lower incomes; and
• Eliminates cost-sharing for all preventive services.


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/9/740501/-House-Releases-Their-Health-Reform-Starting-Point

------------------------

Well, this proposal may pretty much kill any chance of a meaningful public option. Competing on a level playing field with insurance companies means the insurance rates will be the same and the public plan will not be able to set prices for health providers like Medicare. Plus setting up State exchanges to buy insurance will further cripple the public option. Why would anyone want the public plan if it's not cheaper and better?

That's my take on it. What do you think?

[DJ13]

1. What do you think?

I think if this absurdity is the best they can come up with no reform this year would be the better choice.

[Oregone]

2. They did include "new public health insurance option" in the release

[leftstreet]

3. There is no "level field with private insurers"

:grr: :grr: :grr:

Congress can just blow me

[Better Believe It]

5. As another DU'er pointed out -

"There's no point in having a public option that is on a level playing field with big insurance. What the hell are they thinking? The only thing that MIGHT keep the insurance companies in check is a government option that offers the best coverage for the lowest rates."

I think their observation sums it up pretty well.

[endarkenment]

4. I think the kleptocratic duopoly is the problem,

and for that problem I have no solution.

[drm604]

6. It does seem to include a public option.

I can't tell if it's a good option or not.

The odds are that it's not a good one, but I can't tell for sure from reading that.

My understanding of the state exchanges is that states or regions can set up their own plan in lieu of the national plan. Unless a state is offering something as good or better than the national plan I would think their populace would fight them on it. Why would a state set up something that is worse than the national plan when they could just step back and let their populace access the national plan instead?

[Better Believe It]

9. What would a public plan on Alabama's state insurance exchange look like?

"Why would a state set up something that is worse than the national plan when they could just step back and let their populace access the national plan instead?"

Probably because if a state sets up an insurance exchange that will exclude the national plan from being on the state exchange.

Who would want to do that and offer a really poor public plan on their state exchange?

How about Shelby in Alabama for starters?

[drm604]

11. Why would Shelby want to do that?

In fact, how could Shelby do that? He's a U.S. Senator, he's not part of Alabama state government. Even if he could do it, how can he stand against government involvment in health care but support Alabaman government involvement in health care?

[Better Believe It]

23. Because Shelby represents corporate interests, including the insurance industry and not

working people. Shelby has lot of corporate friends and pals in the Alabama state legislature who work for the same business interests and hold the same reactionary right-wing views on economic and political issues.

[drm604]

33. Well

I think that it would be a mistake politically for both Shelby and the Alabama State Legislature, but the Republicans have been good at making political mistakes lately so who knows? :shrug:

[PretzelWarrior]

7. I CAN'T FUCKING TAKE THIS !! DAMM YOU TOHELLL NANCY PELOSI!!

DAM YOU HARRY REID> YOU"RE FIRED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope that fuck hole, Reid goes down in his reelection bid. I am blind with rage right now at the temerity of these traitors.

[babylonsister]

8. Then blame the traitors. Reid and Pelosi cannot make people

vote the way they want them to. And iirc, no one has voted yet. We don't even know what the final result of this reform will be.

While you're at it, blame the Senate blue dawgs, too. They're just as bad, starting with Bayh, continuing on to Nelson, and there are more.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. I blame Obama , some key Dems and the health care industrial complex for taking single payer of the

table.

That made a strong public option the 'hard left' proposal. And of course they wouldn't want to pass the 'hard left' proposal, so they went for the 'centrist' one.

[riderinthestorm]

15. Oh no way. You can't revise DU history. We were roundly slapped for "splitting" the Dems

on "single payer" or "public option". We were told over and over, we MUST endorse "public option" as the best "moderate" way to go and voila! that would be what would happen.... Those of us who argued that we MUST negotiate from single payer and THEN perhaps! give ground to a public option were told we were the ones who were gonna sink this reform.

Well fuck that shit. We KNEW this was going to be what happened. No real reform. No real deal. The final deal's gonna be a 1.87% decrease in overall costs spread over 10 years. Bank on it. Big Pharma, Big HealthCo - they're all gonna get exactly what they want and the rest of us get nothing. And that's the way it's gonna stay for a decade or more.

Obama will go down in flames over this. He never once stood up and forced the single payer option as a viable starting point (or better yet - end point!!). He was a coward when it mattered. I am furious.

[babylonsister]

17. Fine. You'd blame him regardless. And there is no chance in hell

they'd pass a hard left proposal. Nice fantasy world there.

[Sebastian Doyle]

22. The HARD left proposal would be

everyone on socialized medicine, and take the insurance company CEO's out and execute them at dawn.

As fun as that might be, and as much as those greedy bastards deserve it, I don't see anyone actually proposing that.

[John Q. Citizen]

24. Exactly. The strong public option was the farthest left proposal on the table

Hence they opted for a more centrist proposal the weak option.

Obama he said he'd consider all ideas, on their merits, not on ideological grounds.

Did you read the report the transition team wrote taken from the health care meetings? You may notice they never even asked (per instructions) if people wanted single payer. Some volunteered that they did, but we will never know how many or what percentage because that was one of the few things they didn't quantify.

A reporter from our local paper, the Missoulian, (a Lee Newspaper) attended four of those meetings last winter across the state, from round-up in the very conservative eastern part of the state, to North, South, and West. At three of the meetings people brought up single payer and the reporter wrote that single payer was overwhelmingly the preferred choice at three meetings with the fourth unclear what the preferred choice was.

Somehow none of this made it into the final report. Baucus spilled the beans early on when he stated that Americans don't want single payer, and the union organizers I know who had been working for single payer for the last 15 years (SEIU) suddenly started inexplicably moving away from single payer and they began promoting the Baucus white paper.

Then the White House held their big health care summit meeting in march and somehow forgot to invite any single payer experts, nationally recognized health care experts like Marcia Angell, MD Past Editor New England Journal of Medicine The single payer advocates had to protest, beg, and raise a fuss so that two were added at the last minute.

It's obvious that there was a meeting among The White House, key law makers, SEIU's Stern (close to Obama) and the insurance- drug-hospital equipment people and single payer was killed very early, probably late November, before they even held the sham 'listening' meetings.

No consideration at all. Even though millions of Americans support single payer. It's too bad, because if it were on the table, then the Strong Public Option would have been the moderate proposal on the table, and you know how they love to vote for those moderate proposals.

Good work! You got used! You gave the blue Dogs cover to vote the Repo choice. Not only that, but if there turns out to be a fight, the millions who support single payer but never got a chance to be involved in the decision making process won't much feel like fighting for something that was shoved down their throats by people intent on eliminating a strong public pool.

[babylonsister]

28. Maybe it's not anymore...

it's not over yet, unless you're just normally a defeatist.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5813250&mesg_id=5813250

Congress To End Silence On Single Payer Health Care-Hearing Tomorrow

[John Q. Citizen]

43. I know. Better late than never, I suppose. The up side to being shut out was

the intense grass roots organizing fueled by the knowledge that we can't count on our leader to do the right thing just because he said he would. The right thing would have been to allow all sides to be heard in a neutral way.

The only thing off the table should have been the staus quo, but they were some of his closest partners and got the seats at the front.


We made Baucus change his verbal behavior. He no longer tells reporters that Americans don't want single payer.


i don't see that Americans want to subsidize private health insurance companies so that they may better fleece us and keep the money flowing to the party in power. Just that they are dying to.

[slipslidingaway]

18. I agree, Obama set the tone from the start when SP advocates were

not invited to the WH summit. Even though he did not campaign for SP when running for President, he did make a commitment to listening to all sides of the debate and that was not done, the Senate then followed his lead.

:(

[Better Believe It]

21. How many Senators have signed on as co-sponsors of the Senator Sanders Single Payer Bill?

Answer:

None!

That tells me that not a single United States Senator outside of Bernie Sanders truly supports the single payer Medicare for All option and those who oppose a strong "public" option are nothing more than political whores for the insurance industry.

So it's not just President Obama, however, it's true he was missing in action on the health care "public option" until this past week.

And he's been missing in action on other important legislation supported by his base, liberals/progressives/labor, such as the Employee Free Choice Act, the "cramdown" foreclosure relief proposal and a cap on credit card interest rates.

[John Q. Citizen]

25. I've heard it may be incorporated into the Baucus bill. SEIU is supporting it.

The Sanders bill isn't Medicare for all, it's a reintroduction of an old Wellstone bill that would allow up to five states to use federal health care dollars (medicare, medicade, schip, etc) to set up state wide single payere system. It's called a labratory bill so that state could try differing approaches to single payer and see what worked.

Medicare For All is in the house and it's getting a hearing tomorrow in Rep George Miller's subcommittee.

While I'm a strong single payer supporter I never believed that single payer would be passed this session.

But I did believe that single payer would have a seat at the table to be able to make our case to the American people. And to run interference as the bill most to the left on the table. That would make the strong public option centrist, instead of the position it currently holds in the left right hierarchy of bills.

[bkkyosemite]

47. It's on CSPAN3 and the Manhattan Institute jerk is lying and constantly comparing single payer to

what he says Canada's system and it's failure. This is a sham. Stars up again online at approx 9:30 am pdt...

[Thrill]

10. Thats Garbage.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. I think taking single payer off the table makes strong public option the "hard left" proposal

And they wouldn't want to pass the 'hard left' proposal.

[harun]

52. Yep, which is why it needed to stay right on the middle of the table

with a big light shining on it.

[Selatius]

14. If I weren't so cynical, I would disagree with your assessment. I fear though that we're fucked.

This is going to be a spectacular mess if it turns out your assessment is accurate. A lot of Democrats are going to be pissed off and not bother voting in 2010 if it isn't changed. It could be the opening the Republicans wanted in order to try to win back power and take over Congress once again.

[kath]

16. Well, as someone said the other day, this really is shaping up to be The Mother of All Sell-outs.

Sheee-it.

[Honeycombe8]

19. I'm not sure what all of this means. Could mean a lot of things. But I think I'm gonna cry.

It doesn't sound like "affordable" coverage for everyone. I earn too much to get a subsidy, I'm sure. But I don't make enough to buy my own policy. I'm provided with whatever my employer thinks I should have in the way of insurance.

This is a huge disappointment, if it means what I think it means.

A possible one-time opportunity is slipping away. This absolutely sucks.

[Honeycombe8]

20. "Reduce costs" is code for putting our medical history online for all to see... this is the INS COS.

idea. This is what Bush and the ins. cos. were working hard toward.

"Reduce costs," my ass. Sure, it'll reduce costs. For THEM. You think we're gonna see a reduction in our doctor's fee for a visit because of that? Ha! If anything, they'll RAISE their rates to pay for the "very expensive conversion."

[avaistheone1]

37. I feel the same way. I don't thing the Democrats understand that paying these health insurance

premiums is beyond reach for most working class and many middle class families.

I don't see this bill providing any relief to me. The ceiling on qualifying is too low.

I think most of us are going to wind up disappointed that we don't qualify, and that we are still in the same ditch as far as the cost of health insurance premiums.

I hope to proven wrong.

[TheKentuckian]

26. I strongly suspect a pig in the poke from what the House through out

but I'm still not sure where in the world 50 votes come from for single payer, I've never been sure their are 40.
I believe enough pressure can be brought to perhaps limp a substantive public option across the finish line and if everybody would refrain from dying of disappointment because a wish on a star didn't come true. Of course, we still can but "real progressives" will accept nothing else as worth their time and effort if single payer isn't on the menu.

Maybe if folks would take action and fight tooth and nail for the best deal we can get rather than wringing their hands and crafting manifestos of being done in because something never offered or reasonably expected failed to materialize, we could make some real headway.

[quakerboy]

32. How?

I have contacted every representative I have in this system, and several that are technically not mine. In multiple formats of communication. What else can I do? What else can we do? I don't get the feeling that ears are open for hearing.

[kenfrequed]

53. I agree with you.

What else can we do???

I have called, written, emailed, signed up on lists, manned phone banks. And still the majority of the people (who by the way overwhelmingly support universal access to a government health option) will still not have what they want voted on. Instead the greediest health insurance outfits have gotten to frame the debate.

What the hell are we supposed to do when we have exhausted most democratic options? The damned Blue Dogs have screwed us hard after riding the big blue wave of change and progressive values into office in 2006 and 2008. Many of these jerks were hand picked by DLC scum bags to run for office.

Short of starting another political party what the hell can we do to get these jokers to listen?

[bvar22]

49. The time to "count votes" is AFTER the bill is on the floor.

...then let those who oppose Single Payer STAND UP and BE COUNTED.
It is surprising how much pressure can be applied when our politicians have to do their dirty work in public.

Over 65% of the American People (Democrats & Republicans) support Government Guaranteed Health Insurance even if it means raising taxes.

So bring the bill to the floor.

"Not having enough votes" is a cop out, and only provides cover for political cowards.

[kenfrequed]

54. Total agreement.

Yeah and if you at least started on the 'single payer universal european' style system at least you could have an actual position to start out from and then compromise a little bit here and there. Taking the position of the table DESTROYS any bargaining posture that we might have had.

[Monk06]

27. Americans will never have a true universal single payer health care system. Dems and Repugs will

amend it to death.

Just study up on how hard Canadians in
Saskatchewan had to fight for a single
payer government run system.

It took a doctors strike funded by insurance
companies to make it clear that Doctors and
Insurance companies should not control health
care funding.

[babylonsister]

30. I don't ever see that happening here. Insurance companies funding

a strike by doctors?

OK, so how do insurance companies make money in Canada? Are there any for the well-to-do, and are they making money?

[eridani]

36. They cover stuff that isn't covered under single payer

There is money in that, but not a whole lot. Nowhere near as profitable as the murder by spreadsheet that those sociopaths precipitate down here.

[John Q. Citizen]

45. They have private hospital room insurance, some dental, travel health, nursing home,

and a couple of other things.

They are heavily regulated

[LooseWilly]

29. Does this mean...

... that I'm gonna have to quit sniffing glue?

[quakerboy]

31. I can't believe we are here

The Democrats have a window for action. If they do not take it, and provide us a real alternative, then they will lose. It is that simple.

If they do not deliver real health care reform, preferably single payer, but at minimum a very strong public option, then Obama and our majorities will have accomplished nothing that will survive the next 10 years.

Hell, even fighting for it and failing would be a winning move. But this, particularly coupled with the dismal news from the senate side will do nothing other than ensure that democrats lose power soon. Particularly if they pass a mandate without a meaningful public option, they will get eaten alive in every election for years.

[andym]

34. Actually the real heavy lifting begins now and it is OUR responsibility

We need to lobby our congressional representatives now. Tell them you want cost effective health care and that means single payer or at least a robust public option that uses Medicare-derived rates. The reason to emphasize cost effective is that it works for both moderates and liberal Democrats. Dr Dean is asking for you help as is Obama.
Now is not the time to complain, it is the time to do some work!

http://standwithdrdean.com/
http://standwithdrdean.com/where_congress_stands

[eridani]

35. FUCK "affordable coverage" straight to hell

What that means is a cheap piece of utter garbage that will cost half your income if you are over 50, and won't pay out a goddam thing until you are 10 or 20 thousand in the hole.

Fuck coverage! We want CARE!!!

I don't want any of my tax dollars used for such worthless nonsense. It only enriches the mass murderers who got us into this mess.

[avaistheone1]

39. I am with you brother.

I don't think our Democratic leadership is tuned into their constituents so they have no idea what is affordable for us.

They are freaking clueless.

[avaistheone1]

40. I am with you brother.

I don't think our Democratic leadership is tuned into their constituents so they have no idea what is affordable for us.

They are freaking clueless.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

46. Damn straight! Fuck the mass murderers AND their enablers! n/t

[Triana]

38. "uniquely American solution" that makes public/nationalized health care as BAD as...

the corprat private, for-profit insurance that DOESN'T WORK.

Great.

So in other words, NO health care reform. Am I surprised? Sadly, no.

[Triana]

41. WHY create another gov't agency separate from Medicare? Why not just expand Medicare to cover all?

Or, does that just make too much SENSE?

They didn't NEED to create another gov't entity/agency/dept for 'national health care'. WE HAVE ONE ALREADY: MEDICARE.

Duh.

[and-justice-for-all]

51. Because that is the right thing to do and we cant have that..

Socialism is 'evil':sarcasm:, even though the rest of the industrialized world has it! But then again, corporations do not run their government or own politicians(at least not as much).

I have been screaming EXPAND MEDICARE to my Rep with a roar and doing so for months.

[TheKentuckian]

42. It might be possible to meet the goals of even a single payer with mandates without actually doing

it.

All the same in effect but minus the name and spending. The insurance corporations could effectively be legislated in to Administrator position or out of business. Shit won't be a hair socialist. Private businesses would just be required to comply with some "rules of the road". Let's just dress up some Draconian code in a "free trader" label and end around this shit. Let's just spin it, "Harry and Louise" it, shove it down their throats. 50+ votes may be able to be had on a zero budget regulation based item. When big insurance goes broke and dies then we'll just implement a responsible single payer.

Fuck 'em! Empty their coffers and muderize 'em.

[Faryn Balyncd]

44. Is the only thing WORSE than NOT passing REAL reform, actually passing corporatized pseudo"reform"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5816751

[avaistheone1]

48. Corporatized pseudo"reform" is going to hurt the Dems and Repukes.

I think a whole lot of them are not going to get re-elected.

[redqueen]

50. I think that since the markup process doesn't even begin until next week...

that we have at least one week to do a lot of mobilizing for a real public option.